The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principle of res ipsa loquitur in cases where it may not be possible for the claimant to discharge the burden of proving negligence by adducing direct evidence. The judgment also emphasizes the need for a liberal interpretation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to serve the object of the legislation.

JUDGMENT

Anuja Prabhudessai, J. - Heard finally with consent at the stage of admission.

2. The Appellant herein has challenged the judgment and award, dated 08/10/2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Achalpur (hereinafter shall be referred to as the 'Tribunal' for short) in M.A.C.P. No.54/2007. By the impugned judgment, the Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter shall be referred to as the 'Act' for short) on the ground that the Claimant has failed to prove the issue of negligence.

3. The Appellant hereinafter shall be referred to as the 'Claimant'. The Claimant is the widow of one Rajkumar Sawalkar, who died in a motor vehicular accident on 09/03/2007, near the farm of Hiralal Kasdekar, on Kusumkot-Dharni Road. It is the case of the Claimant that the deceased was pillion rider on a motorcycle bearing Registration No.MP-04-AF-1537, which was driven by one Sanjay Marko. The Claimant had stated that one unknown vehicle dashed against the motorcycle resulting in death of the rider as well as the pillion rider of the motorcycle. The Claimant had stated that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of an unknown vehicle. The Claimant had further stated that the deceased was 30 years of age. He was a labourer and was earning income/wages of Rs.4,500/- per month. The Claimant had stated that she was solely dependent on the income of the deceased. She had initially filed petition under Section 166 of the Act. Subsequently, she filed an application for amendment and prayed that the said petition filed under Section 166 of the Act should be treated as petition under Section 163-A of the Act. The said application was allowed and, accordingly, the petition under Section 166 of the Act was converted to petition under Section 163-A of the Act.

4. The Tribunal, upon considering the evidence adduced by the petitioner, dismissed the application vide its judgment and order dated 04/05/2013 mainly on the ground that the deceased was the pillion rider on the motorcycle, who is not covered by the expression "any person" in Section 163-A of the Act. The Tribunal has held that it was a hit and run case and for want of particulars of the offending vehicle, application under Section 163-A of the Act is not maintainable. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the Claimant had challenged the said order before this Court in First Appeal No. 1292/2013. By order dated 09/04/2014, the said appeal was allowed by consent. The impugned judgment and order was set aside and the case was remanded with liberty to amend the pleadings and treat the application as filed under Section 166 of the Act. Pursuant to the said order, the Claimant carried out the amendment only by substituting Section from 163-A to 166 of the Act. The Claimant did not carry out any amendment in Paragraph 14(i) of the petition, wherein the details of the accident were narrated.

5. The Tribunal, after considering the material on record, by the impugned judgment and award, dated 08/10/2014, once again dismissed the petition mainly on the ground that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of an unknown vehicle. The Tribunal held that it was a hit and run case and since there was no material on record to indicate that the rider of the motorcycle was responsible for the accident, the claim petition under Section 166 of the Act was not maintainable. Being aggrieved by this judgment, the Claimant has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Act.

6. Shri P.R. Agrawal, learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that there was no eye witness to the accident. He submits that the Tribunal was required to conduct an enquiry as contemplated under Section 168 of the Act. He has relied upon the decision in Pushpabai Parshottam Udeshi & others vs. Ranjit Ginning and Pres